Remix.run Logo
joncp 5 hours ago

Nice work!

I do wonder, however, whether people really have issues with perf on any terminal emulator in 2026

I’ve been living in Terminal.app / zsh / tmux / vim for 15 years and have never once thought “this is slower than I want.”

aqula 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I keep going back to xfce-terminal after trying anything else. Ridiculously small footprint and never drew attention to itself.

marvinborner 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To me, the most relevant aspect is the time it takes to open. I can't believe how slow the startup time in common linux distributions is by default, it's so annoying, by the time it opens I already forgot what I wanted to do. Alacritty has this cool feature where you only ever have to "open" a single terminal, whereas new windows can be created very efficiently with `alacritty msg create-window`, being forks of the initial window. It makes using my pc a lot more comfortable.

christophilus 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Foot is instant. Ghostty takes ages. I don’t know why there’s such a difference, but I can’t use anything slower than Foot now without getting annoyed.

boltzmann64 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

this is is not new. we have had factory model (forking the initial window) in terminal emulator since 1990s.

Evidlo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also present in urxvt and kitty.

skydhash 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm using OpenBSD with xterm, and when I use something like `time xterm -e 'sh -c "echo 1; exit"'`, it says 360ms or something. Starting it with the wm keybinds is as snappy as opening a new Firefox tab. foot and st felt as fast when I was using them.

porridgeraisin an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep, I want really fast startup too. Of the two I use:

xfce4-terminal starts utterly instantly without single instance feature.

Kitty has the single instance feature and starts instantly with it.

pg83 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Speed itself may not be very important, but it is a very interesting challenge in itself - to prove to yourself that you can surpass the state of the art!

thayne 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

IME, usually you care more about latency than throughput for normal interactions, and there is a noticeable difference between the slowest ones, and the fastest ones, but I've tried a lot of terminal emulators, and any of the ones that put some effort into performance are plenty fast enough.

However, there is one case when throughput matters: when an application has a lot of output. But then the problem isn't the speed that it displays the text, it's going by too fast to read anyway, the problem is that the application can be slowed down by blocking on writing to stdout when the buffer is full. And honestly, the best approach in that case is probably not to actually render all the text, but send most of the output straight to the scrollback buffer, and only render some of the frames.

krackers 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Terminal.app is amongst the best, if these old danluu benchmarks still hold https://danluu.com/term-latency/

wavemode 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

the new Windows Terminal had horrendous performance when it first came out. in the aftermath of the drama surrounding that, was when I first started seeing a lot of terminal emulator projects bragging about their throughput.